You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I can understand and appreciate your perspective. There are a lot of good police officers that are just trying to do their job and often they have to make tough decisions in order to protect and serve. I'm very thankful for those officers. Thing is there are also quite a few police officers (and we have all run into them) that are just total dicks on an authority trip.

I think often (and probably unfairly) there's a presumption that if an officer uses excessive force he's not one of the good guys that made an honest mistake. He's just an asshole.

"You know, with Hitler, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him."

I can understand and appreciate your perspective. There are a lot of good police officers that are just trying to do their job and often they have to make tough decisions in order to protect and serve. I'm very thankful for those officers. Thing is there are also quite a few police officers (and we have all run into them) that are just total dicks on an authority trip.

I think often (and probably unfairly) there's a presumption that if an officer uses excessive force he's not one of the good guys that made an honest mistake. He's just an asshole.

that sort of thing comes with the job. I've had nasty looks, glares, and people blaming me for things soldiers have done during things in Iraq that happened when I wasn't even old enough to enlist. You're representing an entire uniform, good or not. People are quick to call the police when they're distressed, but when the police try to utilize the same training on them, they're suddenly very offended. It's the way it goes. Luckily, we're there to do our job regardless of what others think.

In this situation, yes, it was not necessary to pepper spray. I don't think I would have if no one was threatening, or making gestures to threaten. I'd probably just utilize a wedge formation and continue to walk--and if they happen to be in the way at the time they might get bumped and pushed forward or off to the side with riot shields. Sidewalk is cleared, the formation could break off into two lines to keep it clear, and heavy demanding to get the civilians that are now split into two to leave may be tried again. If someone got antsy after all of that and tried to break the formation, it would be considered a sign of threat, and then pepper spray would be totally fine. At least, that's how I would have done it.

Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

I feel you making your point put you at the entirely opposite end of the spectrum. Two extremes on either side.

If you had been following me from the beginning I don't think you would find my position extreme.

I don't have any problem with police using pepper spray on protestors that are ACTIVELY resisting.

Originally Posted by kyuuei

May is not Is. The source of what is considered deadly force comes from the training of the police forces. like I said.. Cars CAN be deadly, but it doesn't stop people from driving them every day. I could almost bet money if you got into an accident, hydroplaning for instance, hit a car, and killed someone in the process, that you'd not just be like "Well I guess I'm going to jail for life, I knew this car could potentially be deadly to someone sometime if certain stars aligned. No no, really. I insist. I had no idea someone would die, but please arrest me now because I SHOULD have assumed." Pepper spray is taught in law enforcement to not be something of deadly force. We might as well label everything as deadly just to be on the safe side, and maybe police will use pillows until someone complains they were suffocated with one, and then those pesky police will finally quit doing their jobs.

In Iraq, SHOOTING at a vehicle was NOT considered deadly force. The training dictates what is used for what levels, and what consitutes deadly force or not. A warning shot at a vehicle was not deadly force, even though a gun could technically kill someone.

I just think this whole thing about pepper spray killing people is a bit much. I didn't mean to pick on your post in particular, I just didn't feel like scrolling all the way back for the troll that started that. Regardless of whether it was necessary to use it or not, it doesn't make it deadly. People just randomly throw that in there in discussions like this. Discussee 1: "Well she shouldn't have been beating her kid with a spoon, ya know.." trollface: "PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM WOODEN SPOONS BEFORE!" Discussee 2: "Oooh yeah, what about them apples?!"

This might be the first time someone referred to @ygolo as a troll. Lol

I'm totally with you that the police can't be held responsible for unanticipated unlikely results of certain force. But, my understanding of the law is that if it can be anticipated the police have an obligation to not use that force. If someone is wheezing and using asthma inhalers while protesting they should avoid using pepper spray as it could be deadly. If someone is wearing a helmet and is obviously disabled hitting them on the head with a baton would be unwise. These examples may be flawed, but they illustrate the subjective considerations that police must make when applying force on protesters.

"You know, with Hitler, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him."

In this situation, yes, it was not necessary to pepper spray. I don't think I would have if no one was threatening, or making gestures to threaten. I'd probably just utilize a wedge formation and continue to walk--and if they happen to be in the way at the time they might get bumped and pushed forward or off to the side with riot shields. Sidewalk is cleared, the formation could break off into two lines to keep it clear, and heavy demanding to get the civilians that are now split into two to leave may be tried again. If someone got antsy after all of that and tried to break the formation, it would be considered a sign of threat, and then pepper spray would be totally fine. At least, that's how I would have done it.

I would move out of the way for a Kyuuei dressed in riot gear!

"You know, with Hitler, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him."

This might be the first time someone referred to @ygolo as a troll. Lol

Hehe. It's probably happened before. I brought it up to refute the "It's harmless" thing. It is classified as "less-than-lethal force". But "harmless" seems like it's stretching things.

Again, the situation was a small group of passive, students sitting down in front of well protected officers.

The precedent for pepper spray being specified as being used only on violent or hostile people is probably the same reason you can't just use pepper spray or mace on some who just isn't doing what you want them to do.

Iraq is a very different situation from what those Davis campus officers were facing.

As far as accidents and culpability, that is a complex question. If you were mad at someone, and gave them a shove, but they happened to be off balance, fell, hit their head and ended up dying, how culpable are you? It's certainly not murder. I don't think it would even be involuntary manslaughter. But do you think you should get off with a "oops." But that is a whole another topic, and probably belongs in the philosophy section.

Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

You don't mace a kid who's lying quietly on a sidewalk unless you're an asshole and an idiot. You talk to them, find out what they're upset about, see what you can do to help them. Getting a directive from a superior doesn't change anything...how many atrocities do we have to endure until we learn that obvious lesson?

I might be missing something here, but I think they should have tried to talk to the students first. Not talk at them to try to get them to move, but talk to them and try some active listening to see what the problem really was. I don't know. People seem to underestimate the power of effective communication

I don't know if the students even knew what the problem was. Wealth inequality? Protesting what happened at Berkeley earlier? Budget Cuts? A new patent agreement?

Whatever the problem was, the police officers were not the people who could solve it. I think the chancellor deserves a lot of the blame here. What did she really expect to happen when she told the police to do something?

She was the one who could listen. She was the one who could have (maybe) communicated effectively with the students.

But I don't know. Some police officers are trained in negotiation and such, so maybe someone like that could have convinced the students to clear out without the use of force. I doubt it though.

Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

I don't know if the students even knew what the problem was. Wealth inequality? Protesting what happened at Berkeley earlier? Budget Cuts? A new patent agreement?

Whatever the problem was, the police officers were not the people who could solve it. I think the chancellor deserves a lot of the blame here. What did she really expect to happen when she told the police to do something?

She was the one who could listen. She was the one who could have (maybe) communicated effectively with the students.

But I don't know. Some police officers are trained in negotiation and such, so maybe someone like that could have convinced the students to clear out without the use of force. I doubt it though.

Someone in the system somewhere should have seen this.

I think a more effective approach would have been to ask the students to send one of them to "speak for the crowd", and negotiate with that person. If that doesn't happen and it deteriorates into something uncivilized, then you can use force.

Wow this thread boomed since my last post. As for Katehi in previous years' protests about the budget cuts at Davis she wouldn't hold any conversation with students nor staff aside from a generic letter which failed to address some concerns. Had she listened to and communicated with students more often perhaps this protest wouldn't have gone down so badly.